3.5 Serve and Volley?

How common is serve and volley in 3.5 men's league tennis, singles or doubles? Or chip and charge? I'm REALLY old school and it has always been on short balls, chip and charge and if you can hit a pretty good serve ( 1 & 2) come in behind it. Any thoughts?

I think S&V is pretty common in 3.5 doubles particularly among the more successful teams. I play 4.0 in our all doubles local league and have played up at 4.0 doubles in USTA and I'd say the same thing about those players--the better teams get to the net at the first opportunity whether they are serving or receiving. In singles I don't see much S&V but the guys who do it tend to be at the upper end of 3.5. The only two S&Vers I played last season got bumped to 4.0.

I have played with and against many different 3.5 guys in 7.0 mixed. I have never seen one who could S&V effectively, and most won't even try.

I think the problem is that some 3.5 guys have nice hard serves. Their serve elicits weak replies. Rather than come in, they just hit the next ball as a groundstroke (preferably FH) and win the point that way.

The other issue is that some 3.5 guys are horrid volleyers. Just horrid. They aren't coming in because approach volleys are too difficult.

There are a lot of 3.5 women who make a living coming to net. I think the reason is that the returner isn't likely to smoke the return so hard the server cannot reach it. Also, a lot of 3.5 women take instruction and have better hands for that first volley.

I'm a serve and volley guy and started at 3.5 when I got back into tennis a few years ago and am 4.0 now.

In singles, at 3.5, it is pretty effective but at 4.0, it really requires at least two of good placement, movement, pace on the serve and then you have to back it up with well executed volleys. I can hang with or beat most "lower" 4.0s but I have to really be on my game to stick with "higher" 4.0s. Their passing shots are just too good if you give them a good swing at it.

In doubles, I agree with other posters. Having a good serve and volley game, or at least getting to the net quickly, is a big advantage at 3.5 and begins to be a must at 4.0 unless you have pinpoint passing shots and great offensive lobs.

i don't see any 3.5 guys s&v more than a few times a match. it's definitely not their bread and butter play -- more of something they mix up here and there. volleys have to be really solid and they have to be able to dig out tough half volleys.

i do think that chip and charge on returns is a very effective and relatively easy strategy that should work at 3.5 though. chip the ball short or deep cross court and move in. puts pressure on the opponent to hit a good passing shot or lob with two guys at net.

I have played with and against many different 3.5 guys in 7.0 mixed. I have never seen one who could S&V effectively, and most won't even try.

I think the problem is that some 3.5 guys have nice hard serves. Their serve elicits weak replies. Rather than come in, they just hit the next ball as a groundstroke (preferably FH) and win the point that way.

The other issue is that some 3.5 guys are horrid volleyers. Just horrid. They aren't coming in because approach volleys are too difficult.

There are a lot of 3.5 women who make a living coming to net. I think the reason is that the returner isn't likely to smoke the return so hard the server cannot reach it. Also, a lot of 3.5 women take instruction and have better hands for that first volley.

Click to expand...

You aren't serious I hope? Women are almost always horrible volleyers. I play extensive mixed. Several members of my mixed team just won a national championship. I would say all but one can't volley worth a damn. The most I expect from them is to be able to smash a sitter off my return. The higher caliber 3.5 women are those that can return a man's serve occasionally, have solid groundies, and can put away the sitter. I'm not the world's greatest volleyer, but I know to move forward and make volleys as easy as possible. Most women seem to stand flat footed, take volleys low and make them difficult.

I should also add that I very rarely seen another serve and volley guy in singles at 3.5 or 4.0. Really the only one was in a 4.0 match last year I had against a senior just bumped down from 4.5. We were both racing each other to the net when serving and returning and was one of the most fun matches I've had, even though I lost 4 and 5. My teammates said the only thing missing was both of us using wood racquets.

In my limited league experience, I have never seen anyone try S & V in singles or doubles until yesterday. But then, I have never seen many 3.5 players with a serve that lends itself to S & V. And I do see what is being said about the approach volley and half volley being hard to pick up.

I want to try more S & V, and perhaps make it about 50% of my game....it kind of makes the game more fun for me.

I definitely think learning to S&V is important. It needn't be your "A" game. But if the opponents are returning my serve and coming in, I do much better just trying to win the race to the net rather than trying to hit passing shots for two hours from the baseline.

Can women volley? Well, a 4.0 woman is akin to a 3.5 guy. Many 4.0 women have their default setting as hit the return and come to net. This requires volleying. So yes, women can volley.

As for me, I think my volleys are OK. I work on them constantly. I struggle with pace, and I often don't get as much angle/placement as I should. Despite those deficits, I can assure you that when I was a 3.5 playing 7.0 mixed with a 3.5 guy, the only way we wound up two at net was when I came in.

My experience in 3.5 is that you had a huge range in age and skill .... The ability to volley is a marker of someone that is moving one way or another.

3.5 and moving up: These guys are younger, and make up for a lack of skill through athleticism ... these guys may throw in a serve and volley occasionally but lack the skill to do this successfully more than a couple times a match. Most hit hard and hope for weak replies to step into. When they develop the patience and skill to S&V they are moved up to 4.0.

Former 4.0s moving down to 3.5. These guys are mostly seniors that have had their movement diminished with age. You wont see them play singles but they will kill you in doubles because they actually know how to volley consistently into the court and have a basic understanding of how to play doubles.

Perennial 3.5s. Probably happy to push and unwilling to press the action. Not looking to come forward and often play dubs one up and one back. Not interested in learning to volley and that holds back their game. Or ... unwilling to learn to hit with control and just want to punish every ball, regardless of the game situation.

Notice how one player will wait to attack the ball and then come to net, and the opponent will lob. Notice how the players that are two up win the point.

Most of the net play in 4.0 that I see is "opportunistic." A player sets up a point such that she can get to net without hitting the dreaded approach volley. That means a lob over the net player (buying time to get to net) or a short slice (ensuring the opponent cannot easily put it at her feet).

These are perfectly good ways to play doubles. My own tactic is -- and I know you will be shocked to hear this -- topspin lob over net player, run in, volley or smash. Second favorite tactic is topspin angle into side curtain, run in and volley wounded duck between the opponents.

That's an interesting "reference." That's way more lobbing and overall net clearance...and whole lot less net pressure than what I'm used to seeing in my little corner of the world. In a recent scrimmage, at least two points of every game had at least 3 players inside the box...even though both our pairs have traditionally been more of a 1-up/1-back style. We've all come to learn that, like Cindy said, the 2-up teams tend to win more and so we're diligently trying to up-the-ante in our own collective games.

But to the OP's original question, I think S&V can work at 3.5 (singles), especially if you think of it as Surprise & Volley. I love to start out a match that way, particularly with opponents I've not played before. Then, as the match settles in and I weigh my success with that tactic, I can/will adjust it. Even if I fall back to a more baseline game, I've at least established that I can S&V...and they won't know what to expect. I especially love to chip-n-charge, especially on 2nd Serves. They know I'm coming in...and am often the beneficiary of a DF.

The main key to my success with it isn't so much a powerful serve...but an accurate and consistent 1st Serve as I feel the element of "surprise" is usually lost on a 2nd. Still, I'll throw in a (real) soft one sometimes and follow it in.

End Story: Nothing wrong with Old School. It's tiring, more so than all but the worst baseline battles...but is a whole lot more fun.

I fall into the "former 4.0" recently slid (bad year) to 3.5 group (but intending to get back to 4.0....).
@ 56 yrs old I simply don't have the wheels anymore to charge in after a hard 1st (I'm 6'4" - playing since I was 10, so my 1st is still up near or in 3 digits). It simply gets there too fast for me to have enough time to recover and charge.
My preferred serve to follow in - either 1st or 2nd - is a hard slider (sorry I use baseball terms for tennis too) into the body. If I can get my opponent crossed up they're going to set up a sitter for me to pick off as my 1st volley, or if they manage to get more than that on it I still have an easy first volley to set up the kill.
The hard slice serve (into the body) is a very underrated weapon. When it works it's easily as effective as a boomer and much more reliable, as the topspin keeps it in.
I reserve my flat 1st for when I'm comfortably up in the score (40-L or 40-15) and I'm purely going for an ace.
Just my .02¢
-C

I'm a 3.5 guy. In my experience, S&V at this level isn't completely unheard of, but it also isn't particularly common. Most guys 3.5 doubs matches that I've been involved in don't have a lot of S&V, and for sure not consistent, every point S&V.

Haven't played as much singles as doubles, but have also never come across a true S&Ver in singles.

Personally I've been trying to work some S&V into my (doubles) game more frequently over the past several months, with mixed results. It's great when it works, doesn't always work for me yet.

That's way more lobbing and overall net clearance...and whole lot less net pressure than what I'm used to seeing in my little corner of the world.

Click to expand...

i wasn't sure if this video was indicative of most ladies dubs. in this video anyway the lob seems to be devastating and volleys while mostly consistent - lack pace and placement. lots of volleys hit but very few volley winners or volleys that forced errors.

i wasn't sure if this video was indicative of most ladies dubs. in this video anyway the lob seems to be devastating and volleys while mostly consistent - lack pace and placement. lots of volleys hit but very few volley winners or volleys that forced errors.

Click to expand...

That video looked a lot like the 3.5 and 4.0 women's doubles I see regularly at my club. I label it as passive doubles as it is rare that all four ladies are at or inside the service line during the point. Instead the entire point is often played one up and one back on each side and less than half of the points are ended with a volley and very few are ended with an overhead.

Contrast that to the better men's 3.5 doubles teams and just about any men's 4.0 doubles I've played where within one to three shots all four players have moved to or inside the service line, there are frequent poaching attempts, and there is a lot of back-and-forth volleying and half-volleying going on with the occasional offensive or defensive lob thrown in.

I think it depends on your skill set. I can certainly see a 3.5 with weaker groundstrokes wanting to serve and volley. The real problem with serve and volley is that you have to be in good shape and most 3.5 rec men aren't.

That video looked a lot like the 3.5 and 4.0 women's doubles I see regularly at my club. I label it as passive doubles as it is rare that all four ladies are at or inside the service line during the point. Instead the entire point is often played one up and one back on each side and less than half of the points are ended with a volley and very few are ended with an overhead.

Click to expand...

The video looked like the low end of ladies 4.0. I say that because you can't just lob and moonball at the higher end. If the server moves in and takes those as volleys or overheads or swinging volleys, the moonballing will stop.

Those are high 4.0 strokes, IME.

Regarding 3.5 men S&V . . . I played 7.5 mixed last night. There were four 3.5 guys on Doubles Two and Three. None of these men S&V. One didn't move at all. One tended to back up and bounce everything. The other two just played groundstrokes until they got something short. Then they would either smack it or hit deep and come to net.

My 4.0 female opponent came to net consistently, and it is clear that is her style of play.

I cleaned up in my 3.5 men's singles flex league this fall with serve and volley. At the 3.5 level people just aren't used to playing against S/V and freak out as soon as you approach the net. I could have easily won half the points blind folded because they were just hitting the ball into the net as soon as I got up there.
Also you don't need a big serve to S/V at 3.5. Just good placement and variety. I have a relatively slow serve and no one was cramming it down my throat.

At 3.0-3.5, the main frustration I have with S&V (or just coming to the net in general) is when the opponent constantly lobs you successfully. Then, you look like a moron repeatedly. It is also VERY annoying to spend all that energy getting to the net only to sprint back chasing some annoying lob.

The point is, you really need to choose your opportunities well. This is what I am trying to develop. Go in when you know its a deep ball to their backhand. They aren't going to lob you there. Easy shot to their forehand? Don't go in to the net, idiot. They will lob you.

I also sometimes wait too long. You need to be charging the net as soon as you hit the ball, and can't wait for visual confirmation. ie: By the time you see that it's a deep shot that's good to go in on, it's too late to go in. This needs to be a 6th sense, knowing where the ball will go the second you hit it.

If you getting lobbed repeatedly, that probably means you are coming to net like a freight train.

You are supposed to split step when the opponent hits, which rebalances you so you can go in any direction. That allows you to take the lob out of the air as an approach volley. A lot of people are hell bent on avoiding hitting a low approach volley, so they come in too fast and too far.

Lots of people can lob with their BH; I know I can. Rather than avoid the BH, better is to develop a good volley you can execute from every place on the court, IMHO.

I'm saying you need to be balanced and ready to go in any direction when your opponent is hitting. If it is a lob and you are at about the service line, you can cross and take that ball in the air. If it is a drive, you continue forward to and through your volley.

I haven't seen you play, of course. I am thinking primarily of a lady I know who gets burned by the lob when she S&V. Her issue is she is determined to get as close to the net as humanly possible. If the opponent hits a drive, she is all over it. If it is a lob, it is a winner because she has to stop all that excess forward momentum.

I believe the hair-on-fire sprint to the net results from people lacking confidence in their first volley from deeper in the court. If you get good at that volley, there's no need to come in so aggressively that you are vulnerable to the lob. IMHO.

Yea, but you're also advocating being in "no man's land" which is the first thing you learn not to do in tennis. I recall being told by my coach to let them lob you. It's a low % shot and if they get it, good for them, but you'll win way more points going to the net than losing via a lob. So, if that's true, my problem is going in on the wrong shots, not being out of position to play the lob. I am saying if you do it right, they can not hit a deep lob. Like an easy shot to their forehand, don't go it. Massively topspin and deep to their back hand? Let them lob away.

Yea, but you're also advocating being in "no man's land" which is the first thing you learn not to do in tennis. I recall being told by my coach to let them lob you. It's a low % shot and if they get it, good for them, but you'll win way more points going to the net than losing via a lob. So, if that's true, my problem is going in on the wrong shots, not being out of position to play the lob. I am saying if you do it right, they can not hit a deep lob. Like an easy shot to their forehand, don't go it. Massively topspin and deep to their back hand? Let them lob away.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this. If I'm getting consistently beat by lobs when I try to come in, I'm going to look to the quality of my approach shots before anything else. I also think that if my approach shot is mediocre enough to be easy to place lobs consistently well, it's probably would also not be too difficult to dump right at my feet if I'm split stepping on the service line. Hitting volleys of my shoestrings from the service line is obviously not a great position to be in either.

Yea, but you're also advocating being in "no man's land" which is the first thing you learn not to do in tennis. I recall being told by my coach to let them lob you. It's a low % shot and if they get it, good for them, but you'll win way more points going to the net than losing via a lob. So, if that's true, my problem is going in on the wrong shots, not being out of position to play the lob. I am saying if you do it right, they can not hit a deep lob. Like an easy shot to their forehand, don't go it. Massively topspin and deep to their back hand? Let them lob away.

Click to expand...

There are a few factors here.

First, if you are playing at 3.0 to 3.5 and coming in on balls that your opponent can hit good lobs off of, you probably aren't hitting good approach shots or coming in on the right balls.

Second, you do need to play your opponent, not just the textbook. Yes, you don't want to get stuck in no-mans land but if your opponents tendency is to lob whenever you come in, you need to adjust your game to not crash the net quite as hard. The split-step Cindy mentions is key here as regardless of where you are on the court, this is essential to being in the right position and balance to hit the next shot. Depending on where you hit your approach from and how hard, you may very well be split stepping in no-mans land and there is nothing wrong with that.

Last, being an attacking player requires that you become adept at dealing with low volleys and half volleys. Unless you come to net only on virtual winners, you are going to have to hit these shot periodically and improving this area of your game is important to transitioning from the backcourt to the net.

Yea, but you're also advocating being in "no man's land" which is the first thing you learn not to do in tennis. I recall being told by my coach to let them lob you. It's a low % shot and if they get it, good for them, but you'll win way more points going to the net than losing via a lob. So, if that's true, my problem is going in on the wrong shots, not being out of position to play the lob. I am saying if you do it right, they can not hit a deep lob. Like an easy shot to their forehand, don't go it. Massively topspin and deep to their back hand? Let them lob away.

Click to expand...

I agree with Schemke, who phrased things well.

See, a lot of people S&V and believe they must get to a certain spot on the court. If they split step behind the service line, they believe they are not doing it right.

Not true, IME. You split when your opponent is about to hit, regardless of where you are on the court. If you only get two steps inside the baseline, that is where you split. You shouldn't be running forward full speed while your opponent is hitting.

That said, the place where you split does NOT mean that this is where you must make contact. Once you see the return is a drive, you can keep moving forward or sideways or whatever you need to do to reach/play the ball.

Should you "let them lob you"? It depends on how good they are at it. I'm a lobber, big time. I can lob off of almost any shot from any place on the court, FH or BH. The exception is I cannot lob off of a good drop shot or a nasty slice.

I tell you this because I do face people who seem to spend a lot of energy figuring that if they just their approaches harder or deeper or better that they can stop me from lobbing. I also face people who have been told not to worry about the lob, so they go down in flames as lob after lob goes over their heads. IMHO, that is not the right idea. The idea is that you simply need to cover the lob. That doesn't mean "change everything you do and play like grandma." It means take extra care to be well-balanced and do your split so you can take that lob as an approach volley without bouncing it.

When I have an opponent who can actually defend my lobbing by crossing behind their partner, that will make me stop lobbing for the remainder of the match.

Not too many do this, s & v its a good thing to employ, variety is the spice of life , if you can put the volley away, if not slight volley up the middle(takes away the angle, top spin lob ect), just expect the ball to becoming right at ya,,,lol,, this is the professional way to serve and volley all else is greasy kid stuff, with the middle volley "control" is a premium,, watch Rod Laver do it, the best serve and volley artist to date.

I thought in 3.5, perhaps S & V would be more effective because passing shots are not as consistent, especially if you have a pretty good serve and can hit the low approach. I am trying this out more to see if I can actually use it more. i know I am susceptible to lobs and 3.5 players seem pretty adept at hitting those.

I actually blogged about this recently, after Llodra won a few matches and re-ignited the s&v debate at the pro level.

I think it can be an extremely effective tactic at the 3.5 level because, as Drop Shot noted, many players aren't used to facing it and you can win a LOT of easy points. The problem as I see it though is the physical toll it takes. When you serve and volley you make a run to the net on every first serve - whether your serve is in, into the net, or into the back fence. It can be exhausting for 3.5 players because, frankly, they're going to miss a lot of first serves and therefore do a lot of extra running. And if they aren't missing a lot of first serves then their first serve probably isn't forceful and they'll get consistently passed by the better 3.5 players.

Still, as I noted in my blog post, I think it can be a terrific strategy at the club level - especially when applied against the right opponent.

How common is serve and volley in 3.5 men's league tennis, singles or doubles? Or chip and charge? I'm REALLY old school and it has always been on short balls, chip and charge and if you can hit a pretty good serve ( 1 & 2) come in behind it. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

In my very limited experience ABSOLUTELY NO 3.5 players play serve and volley, or even effective chip and charge. All tennis up to and including low level 4.0 is essentiallypushing tennis. Yes, we all have our moments of dazzling serve and volley and chip and charge points, but the games of players at and below the 4.0 level are simply not sound enough to do this consistently and effectively, point after point.

This is just my current opinion based on only 52 matches against 3.0 to 4.0 level players this year. Corrections are welcome.

I actually blogged about this recently, after Llodra won a few matches and re-ignited the s&v debate at the pro level.

I think it can be an extremely effective tactic at the 3.5 level because, as Drop Shot noted, many players aren't used to facing it and you can win a LOT of easy points. The problem as I see it though is the physical toll it takes. When you serve and volley you make a run to the net on every first serve - whether your serve is in, into the net, or into the back fence. It can be exhausting for 3.5 players because, frankly, they're going to miss a lot of first serves and therefore do a lot of extra running. And if they aren't missing a lot of first serves then their first serve probably isn't forceful and they'll get consistently passed by the better 3.5 players.

Still, as I noted in my blog post, I think it can be a terrific strategy at the club level - especially when applied against the right opponent.

Click to expand...

I've played against S&V players in singles at 4.0. It can be quite frustrating. However, chipping and charging off their second serve can completely throw them off

In my very limited experience ABSOLUTELY NO 3.5 players play serve and volley, or even effective chip and charge. All tennis up to and including low level 4.0 is essentiallypushing tennis. Yes, we all have our moments of dazzling serve and volley and chip and charge points, but the games of players at and below the 4.0 level are simply not sound enough to do this consistently and effectively, point after point.

This is just my current opinion based on only 52 matches against 3.0 to 4.0 level players this year. Corrections are welcome.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, at this level it's serve and RETREAT. The server comes in on the usually short angled return by the receiver and then beats a hasty retreat back to the baseline. In dubs, as his partner, I'm at the service line waiting for him to get next to me to cut off the angles--but he's dinking his return and going back. Why? Because at this level they can't volley. They haven't been taught to volley. They can knock off a high setter if positioned on top of the net, but any gorilla can do that. Hitting a proper approach or volley is not in their stroke repertoire. In their defense, a volley is not that easy a stroke to hit. You have to learn it and then practice it.

If you're playing the modern club-dub game--one up/one back--you don't need to learn how to hit a proper volley. One guy hovers over the net waiting for a high setter to play whack-a-mole while his partner plays singles on a wider court, (the two alleys making the court eight feet wider). This will work ok if both teams are on the same page, using the same strategy--but if someone out there knows how to volley it will screw-up the program.

Old days, lots of 3.5's, or C players, used S/V exclusively, because that's what the pros did in the mid '70's.
How can you get good at something if you don't practice it during a match?
I did, as did almost every guy who got past 4.5. That was the accepted method to play any kind of competitive MEN's tennis.
Now we are all girls.

Old days, lots of 3.5's, or C players, used S/V exclusively, because that's what the pros did in the mid '70's.
How can you get good at something if you don't practice it during a match?
I did, as did almost every guy who got past 4.5. That was the accepted method to play any kind of competitive MEN's tennis.
Now we are all girls.

At 3.5 doubles, if you have a decent and varied serve, and can simply put the first volley in play, you will win way more points on serve than you will lose. It is also a nice tactic to use occasionally in singles to keep the returner guessing -- but I don't think there are too many guys who are legit 3.5's that can win consistently doing this in singles against halfway decent 3.5 players -- there's just too much room to pass/lob a 3.5 volleyer in singles, unless they get to the net by approaching off a short ball.

S&V is probably how I earned the last .1 or so to get bumped to 4.0. I began playing a fair amount of 4.0 (all doubles) last year and while I win more points coming in than staying back, that's not saying much. The typical solid 4.0 has me at almost breakeven on my serve with good returns and the ability to totally destroy the weak volley -- that's no way to win matches. I would say that the % of S&V at 3.5 and 4.0 seems identical -- it's just that, as expected, the typical 4.0 is better at most, if not all, facets...